Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-04-09-Speech-3-028"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030409.3.3-028"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the great majority of my group will vote to allow the Accession Treaty for the ten new countries to be signed.
We cannot however approve Mr Brok’s report on the conclusions of the negotiations between the European Union and the candidate countries. You may ask why we are voting in this way. If Parliament were not to vote in favour of enlargement, the candidate countries would automatically be shut out of the Union, regardless of the views of the citizens of the countries in question. Whatever we think of the circumstances surrounding enlargement today, we believe the people of each of the countries concerned should have a free choice on the matter.
On the other hand, the Council’s show of force on the budget aside, adopting the Brok report would amount to awarding a gold star to the fifteen Member States for the way in which the enlargement negotiations were conducted and concluded. This is precisely where the shoe pinches. In our opinion, we will need, sooner or later, to change the fundamental objectives of the current enlargement process and European integration as a whole.
We agree with Mr Brok that enlargement can help to build, I quote, ‘an ever-closer union among the states and peoples of Europe’. It will allow disagreements to be dealt with through negotiations within the common institutions, so promoting peace and security in Europe. Enlargement will also, I quote, ‘assure influence for the citizens of Europe’ in world politics. We therefore support enlargement.
I am very much afraid, however, that this is merely wishful thinking and that the basic issues concerning the future of Europe are not being addressed. This is why Mr Brok is delighted with, I quote, ‘the consensual outcome of negotiations’. We should ask ourselves whether the outcome really is a consensual one. It may have proved consensual in official meetings, but what about the feelings of the people of the countries in question? Has the House forgotten about the candidate countries’ vehement rejection of the stance of the Fifteen on support for agriculture, the obvious inadequacy of credits available until 2006 and the restrictions on the free movement of people? Has the House never been asked for the liberal
imposed on the candidate countries to take better account of their social problems, the employment situation, the fragile nature of their economies and specific national issues? Each country has its own history. The Copenhagen criteria require countries to have ‘the capacity to cope with competitive pressures and market forces within the Union’. For the sake of this requirement, these countries have in fact been pushed into privatising and jeopardising many industries and into liberalising trade, even if this meant creating a huge commercial deficit. Low salaries have become a comparative advantage in the competitive market. The market was increased but people’s rights were not. Where will this leave Europe if we allow enlargement to 25 members to proceed in this way? Furthermore, if Europe does not have the confidence of the peoples of the Union, how can it hope to have an influence in world affairs?
In fact, this experience compels us to open a great public debate, both in Member States and candidate countries. This debate must engage society as a whole, not just governments. We must consider what kind of Europe we wish to present on the international stage, faced with the unwavering and bellicose unilateralism of the United States. We must consider how best to move from a Europe based on liberalism, towards a Europe truly based on social values and solidarity. The House should also contemplate how to reform our institutions to involve citizens in the great process of the transformation of Europe. We should take account of these questions when it comes to the main items on the agenda for 2004, namely enlargement, the new treaty and the European elections. We should campaign on them everywhere from Strasbourg to Warsaw, and from Helsinki to Nicosia!"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples